CONGRESS. (NOTEWORTHY ELECTION CASES.) 



173 



choice, though qualified when elected, would be 

 ineligible when he presented himself for admis- 

 sion. And inasmuch as the action of this House 

 does not conclude the action of another, the man 

 who is admitted to-day may be excluded to-mor- 

 row." 



Mr. Roberts agreed with neither the majority 

 nor the minority resolution. His contention was 

 that either exclusion or expulsion would be un- 

 constitutional. He said: 



" We may know from the history of the past 

 that there is a power above that ' rules the har- 

 monious destiny of this world even better than 

 prime ministers,' and that if nations indulge in 

 constitutional immorality the result must be just 

 what the indulgence in immorality with the indi- 

 vidual is. Its end is death. And so I call your 

 attention to the seriousness of departing from the 

 Constitution to respond to the clamor of misled 

 people. What is it that is invoked as an excuse 

 for this proposed action? 



" What mighty emergency has arisen that de- 

 mands this disregard of constitutional limita- 

 tions? What vital force or principle of our Gov- 

 ernment is threatened? Who is in arms against 

 our institutions, that you should resort to meth- 

 ods that never were resorted to except in the 

 midst of civil war and when the life of the nation 

 was at stake? It is alleged that a man guilty of 

 having married under the sanction of his church 

 a plurality of wives has been elected to the House 

 of Representatives, and hence that the American 

 home is in danger and these extraordinary pro- 

 ceedings must be invoked against it. His crime 

 and the circumstances under which it was com- 

 mitted is supposed to make his a more direful of- 

 fense than murder or robbery, and hence you 

 must be rid of him. The report says: 



" ' The case of a bribe taker or of a burglar or of 

 a murderer is trivial, is a mere ripple on the sur- 

 face of things, compared with this far-reaching, 

 deep-rooted, audacious lawlessness.' 



" It seems to me that that is rather strange lan- 

 guage to be employed in a sober presentation of 

 facts before the House of Representatives and 

 breathes too much of rhetoric and passion. Just 

 for a few moments I want to pay attention to the 

 nature of this crime of polygamy, not with a view 

 of showing that the American people have not 

 the right to establish monogamy as a system of 

 marriage that shall prevail, and not for the pur- 

 pose of defending polygamy either. In the early 

 debate that took place with reference to this case 

 on the floor of the House I then said that I was 

 not here to represent polygamy, that I was not 

 here to defend it; that we had long ago passed 

 that stage of the case; that the thing itself was 

 taken out of the realm of discussion. So I do not 

 wish my remarks to be construed as any defense 

 of the doctrine of polygamy; but I do want to 

 call attention to the nature of this crime, in order 

 that we may ascertain whether it is as awful as 

 the description of it in the committee's report, 

 and if it warrants a more lawless act than polyg- 

 amy itself in order to rebuke a man supposed to 

 be guilty of it who has been elected to the House 

 of Representatives. 



" The Jewish people were made the depository of 

 God's revelation to humanity. You will not find 

 the crime of polygamy referred to regarded among 

 that people as of the character that it is described 

 here in the report of the committee. Evidently it 

 is not from its nature a sin or a crime. If it were, 

 you would not find the Jewish law enforcing it 

 under some circumstances, regulating it under 

 other circumstances, and men after God's own 

 heart sustaining those relations which are now 



supposed to justify you in closing the doors 

 against the member from Utah. If you go to the 

 teachings of the great Master, whom, I take it, 

 we all revere, although he denounced every crime, 

 every sin that man can commit, you shall find no 

 word of his in condemnation of the conduct of the 

 patriarchs or of the law relating to this matter 

 as it was given by Moses to ancient Israel. 



" Last evening, while walking in the resident 

 portion of this city, I passed a magnificent, heroic 

 statue of stern old Martin Luther, than whom 

 the nations of western Europe and America owe 

 no man more than they do to him for the religious 

 and civil liberty that they now possess, the found- 

 er of Protestant Christendom; and that man 

 upon this subject that is here so much denounced 

 declared in the early days of Protestant Christen- 

 dom, when he was informed that his disciple Carl- 

 stadt was teaching polygamy, said in his letter to 

 Chancellor Bruecks: 



" ' I indeed must confess that I can not protest 

 when one takes many wives, for it does not con- 

 tradict the Scriptures.' 



" And again, in his letter to Philip, the Land- 

 grave of Hesse, remarking upon the fact that 

 Philip had taken a second wife, his first wife be- 

 ing still living, he said: 



' ' In matters of matrimony the laws of Moses 

 are not revoked or contradicted by the gospels.' 



" Yet we build monuments to Luther, notwith- 

 standing his toleration and defense of that form of 

 marriage. Now, I say all these things not for 

 the purpose of arguing here upon the rightfulness 

 of polygamy, but I do say what I have here re- 

 marked for the purpose of fixing it in the minds 

 of members that it is merely a crime because pro- 

 hibited by law, and not by its nature a crime." 



He maintained that the question of polygamy 

 had been settled under the law in Utah, and that 

 the Constitution of the State, as adopted, had ful- 

 filled the condition which required the abolition of 

 plural marriage before admission to the Union. He 

 declared that he accepted that settlement, though 

 he had been taught that polygamy was a sacred 

 institution, and though he held himself bound by 

 every principle of honor and humanity to the 

 women he had already married. He asserted that 

 he was chosen to represent all classes in Utah : 



" And I stand here to-day elected by the gentile 

 votes of Utah, rather than by the Mormon votes, 

 and that, too, as reported here by your committee, 

 after they knew all about Roberts in Utah. Yes, 

 and knowing him, and knowing the conditions 

 that had prevailed in Utah, I take it that they 

 were better judges of the man they would have 

 represent them here upon the floor of this House 

 than you gentlemen can be, who do not know 

 Roberts and who do not know the conditions that 

 have prevailed in Utah. 



"They knew Roberts. Yes; perhaps many of 

 them knew of his struggles from boyhood; knew 

 how he came of an obscure family, without pres- 

 tige, without property, himself bareheaded and 

 barefooted when he came into the State; of his 

 boyhood home that never consisted of more than 

 two small log rooms. They knew how, late in 

 his boyhood, he made every effort at acquiring 

 something of book knowledge. They knew of 

 him in mining camps and by the flaming forge, 

 where upon the anvil he earned by the sweat 

 of his brow the bread that he ate, and all the 

 while making efforts in the midst of untoward 

 circumstances to acquire an education. They 

 knew how he persisted in his efforts until his 

 anvil was left behind and he found his way into 

 the forum of the people, becoming the editor of 

 newspapers and of magazines. 



